How Bad Is This For Georgetown?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, but did you know that the Hall of Fame had no rule prohibiting banned players from being inducted until 1991 - two years after Rose was nailed for gambling and just before he was supposed to go on the BBWAA ballot? The Hall didn't want Rose, so it scrambled to enact what really was the Pete Rose Rule. It was not even thinly disguised as anything else.

I have been a Hall voter for 20 years now (and yes, everybody is happy for me). I have never cast a write-in vote for Rose, as a few of my peers have. However, had he been on the ballot, I would have voted for him as a player because he had been implicated only for what he did as a manager, not a player. I wrote columns saying he should never be allowed to be involved in baseball - not as a manager, coach, GM, ambassador, etc. - but I thought his playing exploits deserved Hall recognition.

Having said that, I'm glad he wasn't on the ballot to get my vote. It has since come out that he likely did bet on baseball as a player, and I would have wanted my vote back!

Yes, I'm aware of the Pete Rose Rule, and no doubt that it was put into place as a result of his actions.

I have trouble with the notion of putting him in as a player, but not manager.  How do you separate the two?  Would it be ok to put Marge Schott in the Hall because of what she did for little kids and the Reds, and ignore her other stuff?  In my opinion, you are putting in the man, not the position he held, thus they can't be separated.  Just my opinion.

I'd also argue that even prior to the Pete Rose Rule, there were the aspects of "Character" and "Integrity" of the candidate on the BBWAA balloting procedures.  If memory serves, that has been in place for decades, far before the Pete Rose Rule.  On that alone, I couldn't vote him in.

Would love to talk baseball with you sometime over a beer or two.  I'm sure you have some wonderful stories, I have a few of my own from working for a few clubs.  Good times.

[keefe]

I have been a Hall voter for 20 years now

Are you prepared to correct the Luis Tiant outrage?

[MU82]

Yes, I'm aware of the Pete Rose Rule, and no doubt that it was put into place as a result of his actions.

I have trouble with the notion of putting him in as a player, but not manager.  How do you separate the two?  Would it be ok to put Marge Schott in the Hall because of what she did for little kids and the Reds, and ignore her other stuff?  In my opinion, you are putting in the man, not the position he held, thus they can't be separated.  Just my opinion.

I'd also argue that even prior to the Pete Rose Rule, there were the aspects of "Character" and "Integrity" of the candidate on the BBWAA balloting procedures.  If memory serves, that has been in place for decades, far before the Pete Rose Rule.  On that alone, I couldn't vote him in.

Would love to talk baseball with you sometime over a beer or two.  I'm sure you have some wonderful stories, I have a few of my own from working for a few clubs.  Good times.

I think you know the Marge Schott comparison is silly.

FYI, the BBWAA votes only on players. The others - managers, umpires, executives - are decided by different panels.

I also think you know that there would be many omissions from the Hall if BBWAA voters adhered strictly to the "character" and "integrity" aspects. No Ty Cobb for sure. Probably no Mickey Mantle. Quite probably not even Babe Ruth, a serial adulterer, drunk and selfish SOB. Etc, etc, etc. Maybe you're OK with no Ruth, Cobb and Mantle in the Hall, and that's fine. We all have opinions.

I'd be happy to have a beer with you someday. You buy. And no politics talk!

[StillAWarrior]

I follow Georgetown on Facebook and saw this today:

Dear Members of the Georgetown University Community:

As our academic year comes to a close, I write to share with you some reflections on the work that has been underway on our campus to address the persistence of racial injustice in our nation and the historical role that Georgetown played in the institution of slavery.

Two significant efforts have guided our engagement: The Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation, which began its work in September of last year; and The Working Group on Racial Injustice: A Georgetown Response, which I described in remarks to our community on February 4th and which began its work in March. I look forward to sharing updates on their work to develop new academic opportunities in the coming semester.

In recent days, aspects of our work were featured in a powerful article in The New York Times. We are deeply grateful to the members of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation for their efforts to promote dialogue, reconciliation, reflection, and deeper understanding. Over the course of the past year, our efforts to address the historical legacy of slavery have focused on a new digital archive of historical documents, conducting archival research on the slaves and searching for their descendants, community dialogues, a Teach-In, and a week-long symposium taking place this week in honor of D.C. Emancipation Day. I look forward to their forthcoming recommendations at the end of the semester.

Our work—to remember, to reflect, to act—continues in important ways.

These efforts—which build upon the dedicated work of many in our community over the course of the past few decades—provide distinct opportunities for our community to make substantive contributions to the ways in which we study, engage, and respond to historic and contemporary understandings of racial injustice.

At the conclusion of the fall semester, we had a special ceremony in which we removed the names from two of our buildings, renaming them Remembrance Hall and Freedom Hall.

At that time, I shared these words:

“Today, we mark a milestone in our efforts to make visible, and to reconcile, the role of slavery and the forced enslavement of Africans and African-Americans by our community. Let us not take comfort in this step. Instead, let us see this as a challenge to each of us. What injustices do we fail to see? When do we fail to act? Where is our own moral imagination lacking, today?”

Our University has always aimed to be engaged in the world. This is the moment for us to find within each of ourselves and within our community, the resources of our moral imaginations to determine how we can contribute to responding to this urgent moment in our nation.

I wish to thank our community for thoughtfully engaging in these ongoing efforts and I look forward to our continuing work together.

Sincerely,

John J. DeGioia

[GGGG]

Uh oh.  Did someone alert keefe that the President of Georgetown University is using social media to communicate with his constituents?

[Coleman]

Good on Georgetown for addressing the issue openly and posting on social media.  I applaud their efforts.

[warriorchick]

Uh oh.  Did someone alert keefe that the President of Georgetown University is using social media to communicate with his constituents?

Yeah, well, Georgetown has always struck me as kind of a second-rate institution.

[GGGG]

Yeah, well, Georgetown has always struck me as kind of a second-rate institution.

They're no Zipcar that's for sure.

[keefe]

They're no Zipcar that's for sure.

You are an intelligent, discerning chap. Read Peers Inc by Robin Chase. It is thought provoking. Chase has a unique take on technology, UX, and engagement.

ZipCar is a commercial application of her unique perspective on engineering change in user behaviors and economic decision-making but her real value is on social impact, eliminating waste, and capturing benefit throughout the decision-chain.

You can mock it but unless you understand the underlying concept it is silly to criticize what you don't understand.


Link added:


http://www.peersincorporated.com/

[keefe]

Uh oh.  Did someone alert keefe that the President of Georgetown University is using social media to communicate with his constituents?

There is a fundamental difference in what Georgetown did on this and what Lovell did on Twitter. I trust you are not genuinely trying to establish some form of equivalency between the two cases.

[keefe]

Good on Georgetown for addressing the issue openly and posting on social media.  I applaud their efforts.

I concur. This is an excellent example of an enterprise communicating something efficiently and effectively. The medium is not the issue.

Lovell chose to engage in a public sh1t fight with a disgruntled employee. DeGioia's action is markedly in tone, content. and context. 

[GGGG]

You are an intelligent, discerning chap. Read Peers Inc by Robin Chase. It is thought provoking. Chase has a unique take on technology, UX, and engagement.

ZipCar is a commercial application of her unique perspective on engineering change in user behaviors and economic decision-making but her real value is on social impact, eliminating waste, and capturing benefit throughout the decision-chain.

You can mock it but unless you understand the underlying concept it is silly to criticize what you don't understand.


Link added:


http://www.peersincorporated.com/

I'm sure she is brilliant.  I would not trust her insights on how to handle PR for a university.  That's what is so funny about this.

[GGGG]

I concur. This is an excellent example of an enterprise communicating something efficiently and effectively. The medium is not the issue.

Lovell chose to engage in a public sh1t fight with a disgruntled employee. DeGioia's action is markedly in tone, content. and context. 

Dude, you look down at Marquette because you like looking down at Marquette.  It started before Lovell.  It started before O'Brien. 

We get it.  It doesn't compare to your other alma maters.  We are all simply lucky that we have managed to graduate from the same institution that you deemed worthy to spend your undergraduate years.

[keefe]

I'm sure she is brilliant.  I would not trust her insights on how to handle PR for a university.  That's what is so funny about this.

What's funny about this is you seem to think that handling PR for a university is something mystical.

I offered up several case studies on effective responses to managing crises that were largely fueled by public perception - PepsiCo Hypo, PepsiCO Manila Lottery, and PepsiCo response to Jack in the Box deaths.

I was inside PepsiCo when all three hit and they are classic studies on how to address mass hysteria effectively and efficiently.

Read those HBS cases and then tell me that you still believe Lovell's response was practical or productive.

You might think adverse articles in the WSJ are acceptable but I do not.

[GGGG]

I don't think "adverse articles in the WSJ are acceptable."  I just think they are unavoidable when any organization conducts business the way it should.

Most people have forgotten about the article by now...if it ever really resonated with them in the first place.  The fact that you are still talking about it says more about you than it does Lovell. 

[keefe]

I don't think "adverse articles in the WSJ are acceptable."  I just think they are unavoidable when any organization conducts business the way it should.

Most people have forgotten about the article by now...if it ever really resonated with them in the first place.  The fact that you are still talking about it says more about you than it does Lovell.

Now that is laughable.

Read the case studies I mentioned. Perhaps you will see how the best run enterprises manage risk and address PR crises.

Also, I recommend you get a copy of Robin Chase's case study on *gasp* ZipCar which she did for Sloan.

That is a superb example of how enlightened leadership manages problems. Rather than criticize her I suggest you understand who she is, how she thinks, and why she is lauded by genuine experts as an authority on leadership.

http://www.peersincorporated.com/

 

[GGGG]

I think Marquette handled it just fine regardless of what you think keefe.

But I'm just a lowly Marquette grad. I barely know how to use utensils when I eat.

[keefe]

I think Marquette handled it just fine regardless of what you think keefe.

But I'm just a lowly Marquette grad. I barely know how to use utensils when I eat.

I'm sorry you feel that way about Marquette as I am rather proud of my years there and my degree. In fact, that is why I am so disturbed at how painfully embarrassing the university decision-makers have acted in recent years.

Read the case studies I recommended and see how enlightened leadership manages PR nightmares with finesse and skill. Perhaps if you see alternatives you can appreciate how there have been lapses in judgment within the hallowed halls of our beloved alma mater. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think you know the Marge Schott comparison is silly.

FYI, the BBWAA votes only on players. The others - managers, umpires, executives - are decided by different panels.

I also think you know that there would be many omissions from the Hall if BBWAA voters adhered strictly to the "character" and "integrity" aspects. No Ty Cobb for sure. Probably no Mickey Mantle. Quite probably not even Babe Ruth, a serial adulterer, drunk and selfish SOB. Etc, etc, etc. Maybe you're OK with no Ruth, Cobb and Mantle in the Hall, and that's fine. We all have opinions.

I'd be happy to have a beer with you someday. You buy. And no politics talk!

I almost never talk politics with friends, and never at work.  So no problems there.  99.9% of my politics is here.

The Character and Integrity stuff, absolutely it could impact those others, but I would guess ultimately it wouldn't.  How many women you pork, how much drinking, etc, has nothing to do with the game.  Gambling was and has been an absolute no-no for so long that it directly impacts the game.  In my opinion.

My point on the person thing, rather than the position...it is very difficult for me to process that the same person would be both in the HOF and permanently banned from baseball at the same time.

[MU82]

I almost never talk politics with friends, and never at work.  So no problems there.  99.9% of my politics is here.

The Character and Integrity stuff, absolutely it could impact those others, but I would guess ultimately it wouldn't.  How many women you pork, how much drinking, etc, has nothing to do with the game.  Gambling was and has been an absolute no-no for so long that it directly impacts the game.  In my opinion.

My point on the person thing, rather than the position...it is very difficult for me to process that the same person would be both in the HOF and permanently banned from baseball at the same time.

The good news is you won't have to process it ... at least not in this case.

Pete ain't getting into the Hall.

Oh, and neither is Marge (or Schottzie)!

[ChicosBailBonds]

The good news is you won't have to process it ... at least not in this case.

Pete ain't getting into the Hall.

Oh, and neither is Marge (or Schottzie)!

Yup, and neither should. 

[keefe]

The good news is you won't have to process it ... at least not in this case.

Pete ain't getting into the Hall.

Oh, and neither is Marge (or Schottzie)!

I don't know if he gambled as a player but his performance on the field was so good in so many ways for so long. As a player, if Mike Piazza and Ryne Sandberg are in the Hall then Pete Rose should get a VIP Pass.

Pete Rose is one of the top ten players of all time. He contributed far more to the game than Giamatti or Vincent ever did. If there is no evidence he gambled as a player then get him in the Hall.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't know if he gambled as a player but his performance on the field was so good in so many ways for so long. As a player, if Mike Piazza and Ryne Sandberg are in the Hall then Pete Rose should get a VIP Pass.

Pete Rose is one of the top ten players of all time. He contributed far more to the game than Giamatti or Vincent ever did. If there is no evidence he gambled as a player then get him in the Hall.

He was a great ballplayer, who violated the absolute no-no that all players were told from day one and repeatedly through their careers.  DO NOT GAMBLE on the game.  Period.  And yes, there is evidence.  He bet on the team as a player a ton.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986?ex_cid=espnTW

[keefe]

He was a great ballplayer, who violated the absolute no-no that all players were told from day one and repeatedly through their careers.  DO NOT GAMBLE on the game.  Period.  And yes, there is evidence.  He bet on the team as a player a ton.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986?ex_cid=espnTW

I stand corrected then. I agree that gambling is a toxic threat to all organized sports. If he gambled as a player then he sits outside looking in.

[Coleman]

I almost never talk politics with friends, and never at work.  So no problems there.  99.9% of my politics is here.

lucky us